hard · LSAT
A commentator argues: "There is a well-known principle that one should give up a belief as soon as adequate evidence tells against it. But the moment we set aside that one rule, it becomes plain that the formation of beliefs is governed by no rules whatsoever. Belief, in the end, is simply a matter of personal temperament."
The reasoning in the commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that it
- takes a single rule for when to discard a belief to be the only rule that could possibly govern belief at all.
- conflates the survival of a person with the survival of that person's beliefs.
- assumes, without warrant, that people are indifferent to whether their beliefs are true.
- shifts between two different senses of the phrase 'adequate evidence' as the argument proceeds.
- relies on the testimony of experts whose authority in the relevant field is never established.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?